“These processors
are buggy as hell, and some of these bugs don’t just cause
development/debugging problems, but will *ASSUREDLY* be exploitable from userland code," Raadt said. "Some of these are things that cannot be fixed in running code, and some are things that every operating system will do until about mid-2008, because that is how the MMU has always been managed on all generations of Intel/AMD/whoeverelse hardware."

Processor errata is nothing new, Torvalds said. Commodity CPUs such as chips based on the Intel Core 2 architecture have a considerably lower bug rate than proprietary boutique CPUs.

“Yeah, x86 errata get more attention," said Torvalds. "But those
things are pretty damn well tested. Better than most.”

The errata document specifically mentions the Core 2 Duo E4000, E6000, and X6800 series processors.
None of the errata are nearly as insidious or widespread as more infamous
problems, like the original Pentium floating-point bug, although some can lead to buffer overflow exploits, claims de Raalt. All of the
current errata have patches in the works or can be — and have been — worked
around by developers.

In a statement from Intel Global Communications, Nick
Knuppfer writes:

“Months ago, we addressed a processor issue by providing a BIOS update for our customers that in no way affects system performance. We publicly documented this as an erratum in April. All processors from all companies have errata, and Intel has a well-known errata communication process to inform our customers and the public. Keep in mind the probability of encountering this issue is extremely low."

“Specification Updates for the affected processors are available at http://developer.intel.com. All errata are thoroughly investigated for issues and vulnerabilities, should they have any we fix them, usually through a microcode update.”

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

1 - Iraq was an enemy of Iran. Iraq and Iran fought an 11 year war when the Islamic Revolution took place in 1979. The US economically and military helped Iraq. So, don't come with this Saddam was partnering with Iran, as this only shows you lack in history education.

2 - Iraq had one of the biggest armies in the region and was the only country that kept Iran in check. now that doesn't exist, Iran is the only military powerful country that is muslin.

3 - Iraq's previous oil production account was around 3.3% of the overall because the US put an embargo on Iraq after the Gulf War in 1991.

4 - Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world, accounting for almost 40% of the know oil capacity in the world.

5 - Halliburton (Cheney and Bush have stocks and worked there) has been the greatest beneficiary of the war, winning the most expensive Iraq reconstruction auctions and access to a great share of the oil in Iraq.

6 - Halliburton is under investigation for bribing and illegal activities on Iraq reconstruction and oil field auctions. Btw, vice Cheney is also under investigation.

7 - If it were humanity interests that drove the US, they would get out of Afganisthan so quick, and leave the country to few NATO soldiers, the taliban, drug dealers and Al-Qaeda to fight for it. (The US has less than 10k soldiers there)

8 - This war prevented the US from entering a recession: 150k soldiers in war are people with jobs, Weapon industry is manufacturing as never before, and oil, construction, telecommunications and engineering companies are making a big profit in Iraq (Fox News also, but for other reasons).

No, the US had only economic reasons for going to war. The two biggest consequences: increase of the internal deficit and Iran now has power in the middle-east it never did before (Iraq will probably become a Shi‘ite country after the US gets out, as the majority of the country follows that arm of Islam).